What’s really going on when President Trump blames DEI for a plane crash?

How the war to demonize phrases like DEI can have real world consequences for journalists and those caught up in horrific emergencies

These days, I can’t help remembering a student I had while teaching as an adjunct at a Florida college decades ago.

If you asked, she would describe herself as someone who was independent, intelligent, with a strong work ethic and serious opposition to sexism or anything which might unfairly limit women’s progress. But there was one word she refused to use to describe herself:

A feminist.

As someone who watched Fox News Channel and listened to conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh, she felt the term feminism had a negative shade she didn’t want to get near. Even though, when I asked – given that her values seemed to line up with feminism pretty closely -- what it was about the term that troubled her, she didn’t give a direct answer.

I was reminded of that student when I was talking with a friend yesterday who would definitely consider herself a feminist and yet hesitated to use the term.

This is how culture wars are won. On the battlefield of language – specifically, how masses of voters in America feel about a term when it is used. Regardless of what it actually means, or what it was originally created to mean.

Which brings us to Donald Trump’s terrible, unfounded accusation during a press conference that, somehow, Diversity Equity and Inclusion programs had something to do with a horrific plane crash in Washington DC that killed 67 people.

Here’s a bit of what Trump said Thursday, courtesy of The Associated Press:

Q: “Are you saying this crash was somehow caused as the result of diversity hiring? And what evidence have you seen to support these claims?”

TRUMP: “It just could have been. We have a high standard. We’ve had a much higher standard than anybody else. And there are things where you have to go by brainpower. You have to go by psychological quality, and psychological quality is a very important element of it. These are various, very powerful tests that we put to use. And they were terminated by Biden. And Biden went by a standard that seeks the exact opposite….”

After some back and forth, the reporter pressed on.

Q: “I understand that. That’s why I’m trying to figure out how you can come to the conclusion right now that diversity had something to do with this crash.”

TRUMP: “Because I have common sense. OK? And unfortunately, a lot of people don’t. We want brilliant people doing this. This is a major chess game at the highest level. When you have 60 planes coming in during a short period of time, and they’re all coming in different directions, and you’re dealing with very high-level computer, computer work and very complex computers.”

Trump also claimed that Democratic presidents had called for hiring people with disabilities as air traffic controllers. But there’s reporting that the Federal Aviation Administration began that program in 2019, under his administration. And an NPR story shows that people with intellectual disabilities do not work as air traffic controllers, anyway.

But, of course, none of this was the point of Trump’s rant, which felt in line with his long habit of deflecting blame. In fact, reporting focused on when such hiring began or what kinds of people are hired as air traffic controllers elides past an important issue: Seeking a greater diversity of people to work in jobs – as long as they are qualified and hired fairly – is a good thing.

Ultimately, Trump is seeking to do what a lot of opponents of diversity programs attempt: They want to associate the terms at the heart of such programs with negative outcomes. The goal isn’t to have a nuanced, fact-based discussion about whether diversity programs work, or whether the FAA’s diversity initiatives worked.

The goal is to create a knee jerk, emotional reaction, where invoking the terms “diversity,” “inclusion” or “equity” produces a negative response. If it really works, even people who support the ideas behind the terms will reject the words, which makes it easier to dismantle the ideas, programs and institutions which make the terms a reality.

Despite the reflexive insults some offer for a “too woke” Hollywood — including old texts once posted by the transgender star of a movie celebrated for bring more diversity to the Oscar race — there’s loads of studies showing films and TV shows with casts that reflect America’s diversity do better at the box office and in ratings.

Of course, opponents to these programs don’t believe such systemic oppression exists. To them, DEI programs exist to make it easier for people from marginalized groups to get preferential treatment; many Affirmative Action programs have also included women and veterans of any background.

Creating a toxic shorthand

The way Trump used the term during his press conference, the idea of diversity hiring was used as a shorthand for lots of terrible outcomes. People lacking brainpower given important jobs where lives are at stake. Disasters caused by reckless policies which valued social justice posturing over real skill.

Delivered with no proof – and reporting suggesting the details were actually a lot different – those statements encourage people to look at this horrific accident, identify anyone who may have been hired through a diversity initiative, and blame them for what happened.

Small wonder the family of the female member of the three-person Army crew who died in the crash asked her name not be released publicly. NPR has reported that misinformation online falsely implied she was a transgender pilot from the Virginia National Guard; that pilot wound up posting proof on Facebook she was still alive.

We know the names of the male crew members – but the woman’s name is held back. Perhaps because she might be blamed, in the same way female fire chiefs in California were blamed for wildfires there?

That’s what can happen when a term is demonized to the point where people who use it are responding to the cultural resonance of the word and not its specific meaning in any given moment.

It’s also another way misinformation and disinformation can overwhelm journalists and fact checkers, who may win the battle over specific details while they lose the war over larger meanings.